Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omgili

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omgili

Omgili (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(View log)

I originally deleted this article in April 2007 because it met WP:CSD#A7. Upon review, I restored the article, because I believed the subject was notable and I thought the author of the article would expand the article to more adequately demonstrate the subject's notability. Recently, another administrator (Hmwith) deleted the article under the same speedy deletion rationale. To me, this article meets WP:WEB, because Omgili has been the subject of a number of independent non-trivial published works. I would like to get the community's opinion on the notability of this subject. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: If multiple independent reliable sources can be provided, than it will meet these criteria. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Due to the unearthing of some reliable sources, this would seem to be notable. Change to keep. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Here are a few I pulled up: [1], [2], [3] (most likely not a RS). Nishkid64 (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This site wasn't notable when the article was first deleted, but people are now taking note of its existence. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- found several reliable sources with Google News.^[4][5] --A. B. ^(talk) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough; has won a (potentially dubious) award and pulls 300,000 google hits. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep there are plenty of reliable sources as pointed out more than once Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.